UL

 

Catalogue Raisonné of J. L. Speranza’s Publications – H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: UL

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Ulpio – Ossia: Grice ed Ulpio – Grex griceiana – verbalia: Ulpio -- M. Ulpius Trajanus in the Glyptothek, Munich The gens Ulpia was a Roman family that rose to prominence during the first century AD. The gens is best known from the emperor Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, who reigned from AD 98 to 117. The Thirtieth Legion took its name, Ulpia, in his honor.[1] The city of Serdica, modern day Sofia, was renamed as Ulpia Serdica.[2]  Origin The Ulpii were from Umbria. Little is known of them except that they were connected with a family of the Aelii from Picenum. The name Ulpius may be derived from an Umbrian cognate of the Latin word lupus, meaning "wolf"; perhaps related to vulpes, Latin for "fox".[3]  The most illustrious members of this gens were the Ulpii Trajani, who, according to a biographer of Trajan, came from the city of Tuder, in southern Umbria; there is evidence of a family of this name there. Members of this family were colonists of Italica in Roman Spain, where Trajan was born. They were related to a family of the Aelii, which had evidently come from Atria; Trajan's aunt was the grandmother of Hadrian, who was likewise born at Italica.[4][5][6]  Branches and cognomina The Ulpii of the empire seem to have used a few cognomina like Trajanus, Marcellus and Leurus. Trajanus indicates descent from or relation to the gens Traia, a family also known to have been present in Hispania. Marcellus is a diminutive of the praenomen Marcus.  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Ulpii Trajani Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, father of the emperor Trajan, was consul suffectus in AD 72.[i][6][7][8] Ulpia, perhaps the same person as Ulpia M. f. Plotina recorded in Pompeii, was the aunt of Trajan. She married Publius Aelius Hadrianus Marullinus, and was the grandmother of the emperor Hadrian.[6][9] Marcus Ulpius M. f. Trajanus, consul in AD 91; he was subsequently adopted by the emperor Nerva, and was himself emperor from AD 98 to 117.[10][11][12] Ulpia M. f. Marciana, the sister of Trajan, married Gaius Salonius Matidius Patruinus.[6] Ulpii Marcelli Marcus Ulpius Marcellus, admiral of the Classis Ravennas around AD 119.[13] Ulpius Marcellus, a jurist during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Ulpius Marcellus, perhaps a son of the jurist, governor of Britannia during the reign of Commodus. Ulpius Marcellus, probably the same person as the governor of Britannia, although uncertainties of chronology have led some scholars to believe he had a son of the same name. Others Ulpia Plotina, the wife of Titus Calestrius Ampliatus. She must be distinguished from the Ulpia Plotina mentioned in an inscription from Pompeii.[14] Marcus Ulpius Leurus, a native of Hypata, was consul suffectus during the later second century.[15] Marcus Ulpius Primianus, prefect of Egypt from AD 195 to 196. Ulpius Julianus, praetorian prefect under the emperor Macrinus, was sent to put down the rebellion of Elagabalus, but was slain by his own troops in AD 218.[16][17][18] Ulpia Gordiana, mother of the emperor Gordian I, according to the Augustan History.[19] Marcus Ulpius Eubiotus Leurus, son of the consul Leurus, was consul suffectus in an uncertain year around AD 230.[20] Marcus Ulpius M. f. Flavius Tisamenus, elder son of the consul Eubiotus Leurus.[21] Marcus Ulpius M. f. Pupienus Maximus, younger son of the consul Eubiotus Leurus.[21] Ulpius Crinitus, according to Vopiscus, a successful general in the time of Valerian, who claimed to be a descendant of the house of Trajan. He adopted Lucius Domitius Aurelianus, the future emperor Aurelian, alongside whom he was appointed consul suffectus in AD 257. Modern historians suspect that he was an invention of the author, but if he existed, he may have been the father of the empress Ulpia Severina.[22][23] Gaius Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus, one of the "Thirty Tyrants", he rebelled against Postumus and proclaimed himself emperor in AD 269, during the reign of Gallienus, but was slain at Moguntiacum about two months later.[24][25][26][27] Ulpia Severina, the wife of Aurelian, and Roman empress from AD 271 to 275. Marcus Ulpius Pupienus Silvanus, a senator mentioned in an inscription from Surrentum in Campania, dating between the late third and mid-fourth century; from his name perhaps a descendant of the consul Marcus Ulpius Leurus.[28] See also List of Roman gentes Notes  The latest revision of the Fasti Ostienses, by Ladislav Vidman, places his consulship in AD 72, rather than 70, as supposed by Gallivan. References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III, pp. 1166–1169 ("Marcus Ulpius Trajanus")  ulpiaserdica.com/index_en.html  Bennett, Trajan: Optimus Princeps, p. 1.  Cassius Dio, lxviii. 4, lxix. 1, 3.  Aelius Spartianus, "The Life of Hadrian", 1.  Syme, Tacitus, p. 792 ff.  Fasti Ostienses, CIL XIV, 244.  Gallivan, "The Fasti for A.D. 70–96", pp. 187, 196, 213.  AE 1991, 477.  Pliny the Younger, Panegyricus Trajani, passim.  Cassius Dio, lxviii.  Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. II, pp. 150–223 ("L'Empereur Trajan").  Eck and Pangerl, "M. Ulpius Marcellus als praefectus classis Ravennatis".  Syme, Roman Papers, vol. 7, p. 565.  Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare, p. 172.  Cassius Dio, lxxviii. 4, 15.  Herodian, v. 4. § 5.  Julius Capitolinus, "The Life of Macrinus", 10.  Julius Capitolinus, "The Three Gordians", 2.  Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare, p. 194.  Oliver, "The Sacred Gerusia", pp. 130, 131.  Flavius Vopiscus, "The Life of Aurelian", 10–15.  Daniël den Hengst, Emperors and Historiography, pp. 97, 98.  Trebellius Pollio, "The Thirty Tyrants", 5.  Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, 33, Epitome de Caesaribus, 32.  Eutropius, ix. 7.  Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, vol. vii. pp. 448–450.  CIL X, 682. Bibliography Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Panegyricus Trajani (Panegyric on Trajan). Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus (Cassius Dio), Roman History. Herodianus, History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus. Aelius Lampridius, Aelius Spartianus, Flavius Vopiscus, Julius Capitolinus, Trebellius Pollio, and Vulcatius Gallicanus, Historia Augusta (Augustan History). Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae (Abridgement of the History of Rome). Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus (On the Caesars), Epitome de Caesaribus (attributed). Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs et des Autres Princes qui ont Régné Durant les Six Premiers Siècles de l’Église (History of the Emperors and Other Princes who Ruled During the First Six Centuries of the Church), Chez Rollin Fils, Paris (1690-1697, 1701, 1738). Joseph Hilarius Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum (The Study of Ancient Coins, 1792–1798). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). James H. Oliver, "The Sacred Gerusia", in Hesperia Supplements, No. 6 (1941). Ronald Syme, Tacitus, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1958). Ronald Syme, Roman Papers, vol. 7, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1979), ISBN 9780198144908. Paul A. Gallivan, "The Fasti for A.D. 70–96", in Classical Quarterly, vol. 31, pp. 186–220 (1981). Paul M. M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander, J.C. Gieben, Amsterdam (1989). Julian Bennett, Trajan: Optimus Princeps, Routledge, (1997). Daniël den Hengst, Emperors and Historiography: Collected Essays on the Literature of the Roman Empire by Daniël den Hengst, Brill, Leiden (2010). Werner Eck and Andreas Pangerl, "Ein M. Ulpius Marcellus als praefectus classis Ravennatis in einem Diplom des Jahres 119 n. Chr.", in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 181, pp. 202–206 (2012). Categories: UlpiiRoman gentesRoman gentes of Umbrian origin And for THIS gens? Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Ulpio – Ossia: Grice ed Ulpio – Grex griceiana – verbalia: Ulpio The gens Ulpia is in a completely different league from the various Tuticii, Tutilii, Tutinii, and Tutorii. Those are chiefly epigraphic families; the Ulpii produced an emperor and gave their name to cities, legions, and an entire dynasty. [en.wikipedia.org] The first thing that attracts the etymologist is the nomen Ulpius itself. The standard view is that it is of Umbrian origin, the family having come from Tuder in Umbria before branches settled at Italica in Hispania. The nomen has been connected with an Umbrian cognate of Latin lupus ("wolf"), though the derivation is not absolutely certain. The occasional comparison with vulpes ("fox") reflects the same semantic neighbourhood of wild canids. Thus, at least tentatively:  Ulpius ≈ "wolf-man" or "one associated with the wolf." [en.wikipedia.org]  If so, there is a striking contrast with names such as Scrofa ("sow"), Cicero ("chickpea"), or Naso ("nose"). The Ulpii bear what may have been, originally, a more heroic or martial animal association. The most famous branch is the Ulpii Traiani:  Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, the father, consul suffectus. [en.wikipedia.org] Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, the son, subsequently adopted by Nerva and known to history as the emperor Trajan. [en.wikipedia.org] Ulpia Marciana, Trajan's sister. [en.wikipedia.org] Ulpia, Trajan's aunt and ancestress of Hadrian. [en.wikipedia.org]  For a student of Roman nomenclature, this family is fascinating because it illustrates how adoption and dynasty play with names. After adoption by Nerva, the emperor remained Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, but became simultaneously a member of a different dynastic story. The nomen preserves the old Umbrian-Hispanic family, while imperial politics overlays it with new affiliations. [en.wikipedia.org] As to the cognomen Trajanus, your source notes that it points to a connection with the gens Traia, another family known in Hispania.  Thus: [en.wikipedia.org]  nomen: Ulpius cognomen: Traianus  The latter is rather like a genealogical annotation attached to the former. A Grice-Speranza observation might concern the dossier carried by Ulpius before and after AD 98. Before Trajan:  "Ulpius" = an Umbrian-Hispanic family name.  After Trajan:  "Ulpius" = the name of the emperor's gens.  The lexical meaning remains unchanged, but the social dossier becomes immense. Hence:  Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix, named in Trajan's honour. [en.wikipedia.org] Ulpia Serdica, the renamed city. [en.wikipedia.org]  One might say that the nomen acquired an enormous conventional implicatum. Hearing Ulpius in the second century no longer merely identified a family; it evoked imperial authority. And there is a further Oxfordian amusement here. You have been tracing families derived from tutor, tutus, and related roots of protection. Eventually we arrive at the Ulpii, whose allegedly lupine nomen may connect not with protection but with predation. The progression is almost zoological:  Scrofa — sow. Ulpius — perhaps wolf. Cicero — chickpea. Naso — nose.  A Roman aristocrat could carry into the Senate what looks to a modern reader like a page torn from a bestiary, a vegetable garden, or an anatomical handbook. It is one reason Roman onomastics remains so entertaining. (Ha.) And what was the birth gens of Nerva? Wasn't it UNusual for Ulpius to remain Ulpius rather than adopt Nerva's gens (birth or not) and turn Ulpius into Ulpianus? Thanks Yes, and your instinct is quite right: by the standards of classical Republican adoption, Trajan's case is somewhat unusual. First, Nerva's birth gens was not Nerva at all. His full name was:  Nerva  so he belonged to the gens Cocceia (Cocceii), a plebeian family of Umbrian origin. The cognomen was Nerva, borne by a distinguished branch of the family. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org] A strict Republican-style adoption often resulted in something like:  Aemilius adopted by a Cornelius → becomes Cornelius, retaining a trace of his old family in an adjectival form.  Hence names such as:  Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus  where Aemilianus points back to the adoptive son's original gens. By that pattern, one might expect:  Marcus Ulpius Traianus adopted by Nerva → Marcus Cocceius Nerva Ulpianus (or something analogous).  But imperial adoption had become somewhat different. After adoption, Trajan certainly associated himself with Nerva and incorporated the name Nerva into his imperial titulature. Indeed, he is frequently styled:  Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus [alamy.de], [alamy.com], [en.wikipedia.org]  or, on inscriptions and coins,  Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Augustus. [alamy.com], [alamy.com]  What is striking is that Ulpius remains untouched. From a Grice-Speranza dossier analysis, one might say that under the Principate the political purpose of adoption had begun to outweigh the genealogical one. Nerva was less interested in converting Trajan into a Cocceius than in designating him publicly as heir. Thus:  the old family identity (Ulpius) remains; the adoptive connection (Nerva) is displayed; both dossiers are kept simultaneously.  The very name  Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus  amounts almost to a political sentence:  "Trajan of the Ulpii, adopted heir of Nerva." [alamy.de], [en.wikipedia.org]  In that sense, Trajan resembles later adoptive emperors. The adoption is real, but the older nomen is not submerged as thoroughly as Republican practice might lead us to expect. A Gricean would perhaps say that the Roman naming system here becomes less concerned with strict genealogy and more concerned with preserving informative dossiers. The name Ulpius carried prestige, military reputation, and the whole Hispanic-Italian lineage of Trajan's family. The name Nerva carried legitimacy as designated successor. Why discard either? So your proposed Ulpianus is exactly what a student of Republican nomenclature might anticipate. The remarkable thing is that the imperial system increasingly preferred the cumulative solution:  not either Cocceius or Ulpius, but Cocceius by adoption, Ulpius by origin, Nerva by succession, Traianus by family.  Romans, when sufficiently exalted, tended to accumulate names rather than surrender them. (Ha.) And Grice, who did the Grand Tour after his B. A. Lit. Hum., would think the most conversational act by Trajan is his column? Thanks (Ha.) A very Gricean suggestion. If one broadens "conversation" beyond spoken language to intentional communication, then Trajan's Column might be regarded as one of the longest and most successful "utterances" ever produced by a Roman emperor. An ordinary emperor issues edicts, delivers speeches, writes letters. Trajan also did those things, of course. But the Column is a kind of monumental discourse. It narrates the Dacian campaigns through a continuous visual sequence spiralling upwards around the shaft. The spectator is invited to "read" it. One might almost call it a stone scroll. The monument is intimately linked with the reign of Trajan, the emperor of the Ulpia. [alamy.com] An Austinian analysis would be irresistible. Locutionary level: the carved scenes themselves. Illocutionary level: "Be it known that Rome conquered Dacia." Perlocutionary level: admiration, loyalty, awe, legitimacy, perhaps a desire to enlist. And a Gricean might ask:  What is the Column implicating?  Certainly not merely:  "A war occurred."  Rather:  "The war was just.", "The emperor was competent.", "The empire prospers under Ulpian leadership."  None of those propositions is literally inscribed on the monument, yet they are difficult not to derive from it. Indeed, one might say that the Column is a giant exercise in non-verbal conversational implicature. The stone never explicitly says:  "Trajan is an excellent emperor."  Yet that is rather the conclusion the viewer is intended to reach. Your remark also recalls the Grand Tour tradition. For an Oxford classicist arriving in Rome, the Column was not merely an archaeological object but almost a text. Generations of Lit. Hum. men learned to "read" monuments as one reads Livy or Tacitus. One can easily imagine Grice standing below the Column and wondering whether visual narratives have something analogous to what spoken utterances have:  what is said, what is shown, what is implicated.  To push the joke a little further, the Column may be one of history's most successful conversational contributions because nearly nineteen centuries later we are still replying to it. The exchange has been extraordinarily slow, but it has not yet terminated. (Ha.) And is the 'scroll' mainly visive or has it got letters and inscriptions? Was he present at the opening ceremony? Thanks -- where exactly in Rome is it situated? Is there a Trajan arch, too? Thanks A delightful question, because the answer is partly "yes" and partly "no." The spiral frieze of Trajan's Column is overwhelmingly visual. It consists of a continuous sequence of relief sculptures showing the Dacian wars: marching, bridge-building, councils of war, sacrifices, battles, submissions, and so forth. In that sense it is much closer to a giant comic strip or pictorial chronicle than to a written scroll. However, it is not entirely without text. At the base is the famous dedicatory inscription, one of the most celebrated Roman inscriptions in existence. The inscription records that the Senate and People of Rome dedicated the monument to Trajan and notes that it commemorates the height of the hill that had been removed to create the forum. The narrative itself, however, is told by images rather than by running written commentary. So, in Gricean terms:  the locution is minimal (chiefly the dedication); the rhetic content is carried visually; the implicatures are imperial and political.  As for the opening ceremony: Trajan was certainly alive when the column was completed. The monument was dedicated in AD 113, during his reign, and he did not die until AD 117. It would be surprising if he were not associated with its dedication, although I do not know of a surviving source that gives us a detailed eyewitness account of an "opening ceremony" in the modern sense. We can say confidently that the column belongs to his own lifetime and reign, not a posthumous commemoration. The location is wonderfully central. The column still stands in:  Trajan's Forum (Forum Traiani)  just north of the older Imperial Fora and very close to what is now Piazza Venezia in the heart of Rome. A visitor today can walk from the Roman Forum toward the Vittoriano and encounter the column still standing on its original site. It is one of the best-preserved monuments of imperial Rome. And yes, there is indeed a triumphal arch of Trajan. In fact there are several arches associated with him, but the most famous surviving one is:  Arch of Trajan at Beneventum (Benevento)  in southern Italy. There is also a celebrated:  Arch of Trajan at Ancona  on the Adriatic coast. The Benevento arch is especially magnificent because its reliefs celebrate not merely military victories but also Trajan's administration and benefactions. In that respect it is almost the architectural counterpart of the Column. A Gricean comparison might run:  The Column is Trajan's extended narrative discourse. The Arch is Trajan's epideictic speech, praising and commemorating. The dedicatory inscription is the explicit utterance. The sculptures do most of the conversational work.  One suspects that had Grice stood before the Column during his Grand Tour, he might have been tempted to ask whether the monument says anything at all literally beyond the inscription, and whether everything else is a colossal exercise in visual implicature. (Ha.) And do we have the Latin for the inscription. It refers of course to the forum traiani -- the hill that had to be 'erased' to build the forum and on it the column -- and does Svetonius or other give us a memorable quote by our hero Ulpio? Thanks Yes. The inscription is one of the masterpieces of Roman epigraphy, both for its lettering and for its extraordinary understatement. The text reads:  SENATVS POPVLVSQVE ROMANVS IMP · CAESARI · DIVI · NERVAE · F · NERVAE TRAIANO · AVG · GERM · DACICO · PONTIF MAXIMO · TRIB · POT · XVII · IMP · VI · COS · VI · P · P AD DECLARANDVM QVANTAE ALTITVDINIS MONS ET LOCVS TANT[IS OPER]IBVS SIT EGESTVS  That is:  "The Senate and People of Rome [dedicate this] to the Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan Augustus, son of the deified Nerva, conqueror of the Germans and Dacians, Pontifex Maximus, holding tribunician power for the seventeenth time, acclaimed imperator six times, consul six times, father of the country, to show how great a height of hill and ground was removed by such works."  The final clause is delightful. The column is, ostensibly, not saying:  "Look how great Trajan is."  Rather:  "Look how much hill had to be excavated."  The monument thus presents itself as an engineering datum. Yet the colossal imperial self-praise is there for all to see. A Gricean could hardly resist calling that a monumental implicature. Indeed the crucial words are:  ad declarandum quantae altitudinis mons et locus ... sit egestus  "to demonstrate how great a height of mountain and ground has been carried away." The Roman engineer and the Roman propagandist shake hands. As for memorable sayings of Trajan, the most famous is not preserved by Suetonius, who unfortunately stops with Domitian and never reached Trajan. Our principal literary sources are Pliny the Younger, Cassius Dio, and later historians. The best-known saying is connected with Trajan's presentation of the sword to a new praetorian prefect. According to Cassius Dio, Trajan handed over the sword and said:  "Use this for me if I rule well; against me if I rule badly."  Latin versions vary in wording in later authors, but the sense is constant. It became almost the emblem of the ideal emperor. Whether literally uttered or polished by tradition, it is exactly the sort of remark that earned Trajan his later reputation as optimus princeps. Another celebrated testimony is not Trajan's own speech, but the Senate's later formula of praise for emperors:  felicior Augusto, melior Traiano   "more fortunate than Augustus, better than Trajan."  That says something about the esteem in which the Ulpian emperor was held. As to his physical presence, Trajan certainly lived to see the Column completed, since it was dedicated in AD 113 and he died in AD 117. We possess the monument; we do not, however, possess a surviving ancient account saying, "Trajan stood here on the day of dedication and spoke the following words." A final Gricean thought. The Column's explicit inscription concerns a hill:  "This shows how much hillside was removed."  The audience's takeaway is:  "This emperor conquered Dacia, transformed Rome, commanded vast resources, and deserves admiration."  If ever there was a distinction between what is said and what is meant, Trajan's Column may be one of the grandest examples in stone. (Ha.) Perhaps we can have a latin for this below because Grice calls it a 'deviated' conversational move with attending implicature: "Use this for me if I rule well; against me if I rule badly." -- Use this FOR me" plain imperative -- followed by the protasis or antecedent: "if I JUDGE that I RULE well" -- implicatum: if YOU, praetorian guard, the addressee of this -- JUDGE that I rule well." Modus tollendo tollens: Use this AGAINST me if I JUDGE [YOU JUDGE] that I rule badly." Grice: "Odd that he would dislocate the judgemental authority to a mere praetor." Grice connects this with incontinentia or akrasia. Ulpio would be 'incontinent' if he JUDGES that he rules badly and he still judges badly. "By dislocating the implicatum, he avoids the paradox, but loses any little authority he had -- Charles I attempted a similarity and he was soon beheaded!" Thanks A Latin version commonly given for the anecdote is:  Hunc tibi gladium do: si bene rem publicam administravero, pro me utere; si male, contra me.  Or more succinctly:  Accipe gladium; pro me, si bene impero, contra me, si male.  One should note that these are literary reconstructions of the sentiment reported by Cassius Dio, not necessarily stenographic transcripts of Trajan's actual words. The historical point is the contrast:  pro me ("for me") contra me ("against me").  Now your Gricean analysis is very interesting. The utterance is rhetorically powerful precisely because it appears to transfer judgement from the emperor to the recipient. Formally:  If I rule well, use the sword for me. If I rule badly, use it against me.  But as you note, there is a suppressed evaluator. The explicit conditional lacks:  si tu iudicaveris me bene imperare ("if you judge that I rule well")  or  si tu iudicaveris me male imperare ("if you judge that I rule badly").  Yet practically the Praetorian prefect must be the evaluator, otherwise the instruction cannot guide action. The Gricean reconstruction might be:  Use this for me if you judge that I rule well. Use this against me if you judge that I rule badly.  The conversational effect is generated by what is omitted. As you suggest, there is also an intriguing connection with akrasia (incontinentia). For suppose Trajan's version were instead:  "Use this against me if I judge that I rule badly."  That would be peculiar. For if the emperor genuinely judges that he rules badly, then why continue to rule badly? One would be close to a Socratic puzzle:  How can a rational ruler know the better course and yet persist in the worse?  By shifting the judgement externally to the prefect, Trajan escapes that difficulty. Yet he pays a political price. The utterance seems to imply:  ultimate evaluation of my rule belongs not solely to me.  A constitutional theorist might admire that. A monarch might find it alarming. Your comparison with Charles I is therefore apt in spirit. A ruler who publicly invites judgement from others may sound magnanimous; but every invitation to judgement carries the possibility of an adverse verdict. Indeed, an Austinian might distinguish: Locution:  Use this against me if I rule badly.  Illocution:  I authorize resistance to tyranny.  Perlocution:  I am confident that no one will conclude that I am a tyrant.  The remark works because the audience admires the confidence and apparent modesty. The implicature is not really:  "Please assassinate me if necessary."  Rather:  "My government is so just that I can afford to say this."  In that sense the utterance resembles the inscription on Trajan's Column. The Column explicitly says:  ad declarandum quantae altitudinis mons et locus sit egestus "to show how great a height of hill and ground has been removed."  The intended conclusion is not geological but political:  "Behold an emperor capable of commanding such works."  Likewise the sword anecdote is not fundamentally about the use of the sword. It is about projecting the image of the ruler who fears no judgement because he expects to deserve none. (Ha.)